Sorry, you're not allowed to afford a comfy chair and popcorn. That would flaunt too much success [for a peon], so your resources are being confiscated to: 1. Pay for someone's socialistic wet dream 2. Pay for domestic spying, war and cronyism
Unfortunately, there is no option three. You cannot keep what you have earned.
I understand the sentiment, but it's about as practical as gun control.
It's still ridiculously easy to murder someone with chemicals you could get from retail stores. Perhaps access to prescription drugs could make it easier to mask the killing as an accident, but all that would really change in the set {motive, means, opportunity} would be the universe of means. Locking drugs up behind the counter does not currently make means an empty set itself.
It's also relatively easy to get cocaine today if you want it. Not "walk into a drugstore" easy, but putting substances onto a control schedule does not stop stupid people from being stupid.
Look, I appreciate some of what the FDA does for us. I'm glad biotech companies can't sell us snake oil. But it's also not hard to see that the FDA exerts far more control than what is good for us. That you can't get EpiPen (the official, registered trademark one) from Canada for the $100 it would cost you is insane. It's the exact same product manufactured to the exact same specs required in the US. But because the FDA has overreach, US customers get the privilege of spending an extra $500 per dose.
There has to be a space where intelligent patients are allowed to study, research and decide what's best for them. Yes, some people might die, but as long as there was a clear communication of the risks and an informed decision being made, that's really not a whole lot different than what happens now. People die from unexpected side effects of drugs all the time. I don't have a problem with a person being allowed to make that decision for himself or herself.
What we have now is broken, and we honestly need more ideas like EpiPencil.
I'm going to skip over the abortion debate, because that's a separate issue (is all human life worth equal protection under the law, or isn't it?).
But you present a caricature of religious people, "I don't like gay marriage, no gay shall get a marriage license." And no doubt there are some of those out there. But most religious people say, at least these days, "I don't agree with gay marriage, so I don't wan't to have anything to do with it." And then the gay marriage patrol comes out and "imposes their [religious] opinion on others" by forcing them to participate. Right now it's cakes and pictures, but there are many in this group who want to force churches to open their facilities and their ministers to participate in the ceremony. If anyone is imposing their will, it's the gay marriage group.
When the religious groups were the majority, the minority called for tolerance, and got it. Now that the non-religious are in the majority, the religious are asking for the same benefit of tolerance, and they're getting a huge "fuck you".
This is what I've never quite understood: why does it seem that zoning laws are allowed to ignore constitutional freedoms? Banning research and development, "including software coding" would seem to ignore the right to free speech, free assembly and the right to privacy (if it's my property and I'm not doing anything dangerous toward my neighbors, why does the city care what I'm doing inside?)
Look, I understand that we don't want coal factories building next to residences. That all makes sense to me, and I could see an argument that this doesn't restrict constitutional freedom. But where does a city get off telling a person they can't run a business (e.g. sole proprietorship) out of their home?
So while I'm afraid that Palo Alto could follow through on this threat, it boggles the mind how it could in the USA. I also think it would be royally dumb for them to kick out all of these businesses too, but that's a different discussion.
Don't you remember the good old days when companies would grow profits by innovating? Even Apple used to be there not too long ago. It seems the the whole world has run out of ideas and so there's one last idea to run into the ground: squeeze suppliers.
These days, your political preference is easier to tell than your gender. That's not even factoring into account that they seem to categorize politics into three buckets and gender into over 70.
I used to think Quora was cool, but there was a day that they started censoring replies to Hillary Clinton's answers to question (well, probably her staff's answers).
I read through her answers and found one of them to be particularly deceitful...beyond normal political spin. So I replied with a stern but thoughtful and truthful post. I did not engage in ad hominem or say anything derogatory. I was clearly not trolling and the follow-up discussion under my thread was outstanding.
After about an hour, the post disappeared without a trace. No communication to say that the post was flagged or in violation of their terms of service. I've seen very edgy and far more provocative pieces stand in comparison to what I wrote.
It's become clear that they were only interested in being a mouthpiece for Clinton and her platform. Quora was unwilling to communicate about the censorship despite my repeated attempts to contact them, even to employees who had previously reached out to me. It was utter silence. Since then, I've seen extended invitation to the liberal side of the political aisle to promote their "answers" (read: agenda) into the feeds of their readers. They're supposed to be interest and preference driven, but oddly enough I get all of Clinton's rhetoric despite having signed up for math and science subjects.
Anyway, I know that Quora isn't Twitter, but it is alarming how hard these social media companies feel compelled to censor the dissent against their prospective. What are they afraid of? I also find it disgusting that they act so anti first amendment in the country and culture that allowed them to thrive. Flaming hypocrites, all of them.
As USians, we can't buy The Pokemon Company (it's a Japanese company), and Niantic isn't publicly listed, so we can't buy it either. Nintendo is listed in Japan, but it trades here under a special stock called an ADR (American Depository Receipt) here in the US. Since Nintendo owns parts of these other companies, buying the ADR was the only way some investors could get in on the action.
As I watched the stock, it jumped initially because of the Pokemon Go news (from ~$17 to $27), then it consolidated. That actually seemed reasonable given the news. A couple of days later, it jumped again (from ~$27 to ~$37) as news spread and momentum traders wanted to get in on the action. To me, that seemed like an overreach. So now since the momentum stalled out and people want to take profits, it's turning down again.
So it takes a little bit of knowledge to know that Nintendo does stand to benefit from the success of Pokemon Go, but it takes more research to know how much. My guess is that TV news gave people the first bit without anyone doing their homework for the second bit.
I love trading and am okay at it (I make profits every year and generally beat the market on a return basis). I did not want to touch this one with a 10-foot pole. Too much volatility for it to be investing or trading--it really did turn into gambling for some people.
I'm always excited for our daily Pokemon Go submission. I guess my only question is: How can I buy Pokecoins with Bitcoins? That would be a slashdot wet dream, wouldn't it? We'd have to post about that like 3 times a day--possibly even more than about Hillary and Trump!
I kid, I kid. I actually like the game, and I'm glad for Nintendo (I've owned every console of theirs from the beginning). My only disappointment about the whole thing was not buying Nintendo stock when it was low, as the game was coming out.
I have mod points, and I'm tempted to use them on this thread, but I think it's more important to comment. I must begin by saying I am not a Trump supporter. I hate the guy and do not plan to vote for him.
That said, I am flabbergasted that the FBI basically said that Clinton broke laws, but because it wasn't intentional, they don't recommend charges. If you or I did that, we'd be in Federal PMITA Prison faster than you can say, "I'd like to speak to my lawyer." How many people have been found guilty in court with a reminder from the judge that "ignorance is no excuse."
It is now crystal clear that there are two sets of laws in this country: one set that applies to us regular folk and another that applies (or doesn't, rather) to the elite.
My guess is that, in the end, Joe Biden decided he didn't actually want to run for president this time around, or you can bet that the FBI and DoJ would come down hard on Clinton.
I have bought half a dozen of the WRT54GL since they came out--two for me and the others to help other people. They were great, and I'm surprised to see them still for sale. I've loaded DD-WRT and Tomato on this model and was very happy in general. My last one bit the dust and I've moved on.
There are plenty of routers out there now that work with DD-WRT. After doing a bit of research, I settled on the TP-LINK TL-WDR4300. I did not get a newer model, however, because DD-WRT didn't support the newest radios. Take a look before you buy, these firmware projects are always updating.
After having run the new hardware, I would recommend going this way. The processors are so much better that it's a dream to run the custom firmware compared to the WRT54GL.
Gun ownership may not be known by governments generally, and shouldn't be. However, my great state of Illinois requires registration. Gun owners are registered in the Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) database. If you are caught with ammo in your car and you don't have a FOID card, you're the lucky recipient of a fresh felony charge (can happen if your spouse leaves ammo in the car).
That doesn't explain the other 49 states, and Illinois' data shouldn't be public, but unfortunately our government knows who owns guns. In theory you might have a FOID and no gun, but that's probably a very small percentage. (And I should add: the gang bangers in Chicago who get their guns illegally definitely don't have this ID)
I agree with the proposition that we need to end the war on drugs (and I'm a conservative). At the very least, we need to stop locking up users--that's so counterproductive.
However, the real problem is that ending prohibition 2.0 (nice phrase, btw) is that it won't undo all of constitutional abuse that's come with it. Do you think legalizing drugs in our country will suddenly end civil asset forfeiture? That's basically what's going on in terms of this article. We're screwed either way and drugs have nothing to do with it.
The point is that we could enforce drug laws without trampling on constitutional rights. We can also legalize drugs and still live in a police state. We're far enough away from the 80s that they're basically orthogonal issues. And the bureaucrats will use any excuse (drugs, terrorism, kids) to support a totalitarian agenda with bipartisan support. Don't get too hung up on the drug thing--we need to fight the fire at the source.
So you bash gun owners saying, "You are dumber then a box of rocks. Wake up, it's not the 18th century any more.....they can generate a list with you name on it in milliseconds."
But then you amusingly go on to say, "You want to do something? Don't use software that requires signing a EULA. Tell your congress critter not to support the TPP. Join the EFF and the ACLU, use encryption and run Linux."
Pretty sure the gov't can generate a list of enemy non-combatants who use encryption about as quickly as they generate the gun owner list. But you go on feeling smug and superior about your method of protecting liberty and tell me how that goes when they bring their $5 wrench. I'm not saying that guns [or encryption] are the answer against a nuclear power, but your argument wasn't a whole lot smarter than the box of rocks you denigrate.
This works in theory, but it would be terrible in practice. Imagine if you had a good reason to sue Microsoft, for instance. They can spend millions defending themselves, and in our justice system, unfortunately, throwing more money at the problem is correlated with winning more. You could have a legitimate claim, they get out of it on a technicality, and now you're on the hook for millions.
Perhaps we could work something like: loser pays the min of the plaintiff or defendant legal fees to the winner. So in the worst case, you double your legal fees. I think that would also stop crooks like Zavodnik without bankrupting guys like Costello.
My idea has been to create an intellectual property tax that grows exponentially. The year the owner chooses not to pay the tax, the ip enters public domain. Start the tax small and set the curve so that you get a fair shot to use it (target 7 years). You can hold the patent (or copyright) as long as you want and can pay the tax, so an insanely profitable drug could be protected for longer than 17 years.
I dislike the double standards between physical and intellectual property. I'm told I have to pay ridiculous taxes on my home to support infrastructure. Fair enough, but then ip holders need to participate in funding the infrastructure they use for the country to defend their property rights and use.
I'm sure there's plenty of caveat emptor to go around, but the very first thing I did when I got my Charge HR was to test it by taking my pulse myself and comparing it to the fitbit number.
The resting heart rate is dead on. (not their calculated resting heart rate--that's a dumb, arbitrary number they come up with, but the real time resting heart rate is accurate.)
I've had a few troubles with the workout heart rate, but not because it can't count, but because the wristband moves around after sweat dislodges it. It can slip down my wrist and the sensor will lose contact with my skin. But when that doesn't happen, the number is pretty close.
For a while at first, I wore my under armor heart rate monitor on my chest along with the fitbit, and they were pretty much in sync, too.
It all depends how far away the plane is. I remember hearing the sonic boom of the space shuttle entering the atmosphere ca. 1998. It sounded like soft, distant thunder.
This plane plans to fly pretty high. If it waits to break until it's very high up, it won't be a problem for anyone.
Fighter jets are ludicrously loud, even subsonic. There's a small airport a couple miles from my office. When some f16s took off, it sounded like a jumbo jet was aiming to crash into our building.
Ashok Goel, a computer science professor, did not reveal Watson's true identity to students until after they'd turned in their final exams.
And...
"A really fun thing in this class has been once students knew about Jill they were so motivated, so engaged. I've never seen this kind of motivation and engagement," Goel said. "What a beautiful way of teaching artificial intelligence."
Which was it?
Or is he saying they were demotivated and not engaged the whole semester?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, you're not allowed to afford a comfy chair and popcorn. That would flaunt too much success [for a peon], so your resources are being confiscated to:
1. Pay for someone's socialistic wet dream
2. Pay for domestic spying, war and cronyism
Unfortunately, there is no option three. You cannot keep what you have earned.
I understand the sentiment, but it's about as practical as gun control.
It's still ridiculously easy to murder someone with chemicals you could get from retail stores. Perhaps access to prescription drugs could make it easier to mask the killing as an accident, but all that would really change in the set {motive, means, opportunity} would be the universe of means. Locking drugs up behind the counter does not currently make means an empty set itself.
It's also relatively easy to get cocaine today if you want it. Not "walk into a drugstore" easy, but putting substances onto a control schedule does not stop stupid people from being stupid.
Look, I appreciate some of what the FDA does for us. I'm glad biotech companies can't sell us snake oil. But it's also not hard to see that the FDA exerts far more control than what is good for us. That you can't get EpiPen (the official, registered trademark one) from Canada for the $100 it would cost you is insane. It's the exact same product manufactured to the exact same specs required in the US. But because the FDA has overreach, US customers get the privilege of spending an extra $500 per dose.
There has to be a space where intelligent patients are allowed to study, research and decide what's best for them. Yes, some people might die, but as long as there was a clear communication of the risks and an informed decision being made, that's really not a whole lot different than what happens now. People die from unexpected side effects of drugs all the time. I don't have a problem with a person being allowed to make that decision for himself or herself.
What we have now is broken, and we honestly need more ideas like EpiPencil.
Learn to read.
Hypocrite.
I'm going to skip over the abortion debate, because that's a separate issue (is all human life worth equal protection under the law, or isn't it?).
But you present a caricature of religious people, "I don't like gay marriage, no gay shall get a marriage license." And no doubt there are some of those out there. But most religious people say, at least these days, "I don't agree with gay marriage, so I don't wan't to have anything to do with it." And then the gay marriage patrol comes out and "imposes their [religious] opinion on others" by forcing them to participate. Right now it's cakes and pictures, but there are many in this group who want to force churches to open their facilities and their ministers to participate in the ceremony. If anyone is imposing their will, it's the gay marriage group.
When the religious groups were the majority, the minority called for tolerance, and got it. Now that the non-religious are in the majority, the religious are asking for the same benefit of tolerance, and they're getting a huge "fuck you".
but could be a Democrat Presidential Nominee... if he happened to be a natural born US citizen.
Eh, they can probably get around that too these days.
See, she's not a malicious lawbreaker, she's a drooling moron. All hail our next Commander-in-Chief!
Seriously, if she can't recall basic instructions, how can she be trusted to lead the country?
[No, don't get me started on Trump. Please, everyone, vote 3rd party.]
This is what I've never quite understood: why does it seem that zoning laws are allowed to ignore constitutional freedoms? Banning research and development, "including software coding" would seem to ignore the right to free speech, free assembly and the right to privacy (if it's my property and I'm not doing anything dangerous toward my neighbors, why does the city care what I'm doing inside?)
Look, I understand that we don't want coal factories building next to residences. That all makes sense to me, and I could see an argument that this doesn't restrict constitutional freedom. But where does a city get off telling a person they can't run a business (e.g. sole proprietorship) out of their home?
So while I'm afraid that Palo Alto could follow through on this threat, it boggles the mind how it could in the USA. I also think it would be royally dumb for them to kick out all of these businesses too, but that's a different discussion.
Don't you remember the good old days when companies would grow profits by innovating? Even Apple used to be there not too long ago. It seems the the whole world has run out of ideas and so there's one last idea to run into the ground: squeeze suppliers.
These days, your political preference is easier to tell than your gender. That's not even factoring into account that they seem to categorize politics into three buckets and gender into over 70.
School started.
I used to think Quora was cool, but there was a day that they started censoring replies to Hillary Clinton's answers to question (well, probably her staff's answers).
I read through her answers and found one of them to be particularly deceitful...beyond normal political spin. So I replied with a stern but thoughtful and truthful post. I did not engage in ad hominem or say anything derogatory. I was clearly not trolling and the follow-up discussion under my thread was outstanding.
After about an hour, the post disappeared without a trace. No communication to say that the post was flagged or in violation of their terms of service. I've seen very edgy and far more provocative pieces stand in comparison to what I wrote.
It's become clear that they were only interested in being a mouthpiece for Clinton and her platform. Quora was unwilling to communicate about the censorship despite my repeated attempts to contact them, even to employees who had previously reached out to me. It was utter silence. Since then, I've seen extended invitation to the liberal side of the political aisle to promote their "answers" (read: agenda) into the feeds of their readers. They're supposed to be interest and preference driven, but oddly enough I get all of Clinton's rhetoric despite having signed up for math and science subjects.
Anyway, I know that Quora isn't Twitter, but it is alarming how hard these social media companies feel compelled to censor the dissent against their prospective. What are they afraid of? I also find it disgusting that they act so anti first amendment in the country and culture that allowed them to thrive. Flaming hypocrites, all of them.
I have lots of experience over the years, (with me), and I've done it every way.
Floss. That's all there is to it. You will have trouble with your gums and with cavities if you don't.
You don't have to floss every day. Once a week is enough. Your dentist won't even be able to tell the difference.
As USians, we can't buy The Pokemon Company (it's a Japanese company), and Niantic isn't publicly listed, so we can't buy it either. Nintendo is listed in Japan, but it trades here under a special stock called an ADR (American Depository Receipt) here in the US. Since Nintendo owns parts of these other companies, buying the ADR was the only way some investors could get in on the action.
As I watched the stock, it jumped initially because of the Pokemon Go news (from ~$17 to $27), then it consolidated. That actually seemed reasonable given the news. A couple of days later, it jumped again (from ~$27 to ~$37) as news spread and momentum traders wanted to get in on the action. To me, that seemed like an overreach. So now since the momentum stalled out and people want to take profits, it's turning down again.
So it takes a little bit of knowledge to know that Nintendo does stand to benefit from the success of Pokemon Go, but it takes more research to know how much. My guess is that TV news gave people the first bit without anyone doing their homework for the second bit.
I love trading and am okay at it (I make profits every year and generally beat the market on a return basis). I did not want to touch this one with a 10-foot pole. Too much volatility for it to be investing or trading--it really did turn into gambling for some people.
I'm always excited for our daily Pokemon Go submission. I guess my only question is: How can I buy Pokecoins with Bitcoins? That would be a slashdot wet dream, wouldn't it? We'd have to post about that like 3 times a day--possibly even more than about Hillary and Trump!
I kid, I kid. I actually like the game, and I'm glad for Nintendo (I've owned every console of theirs from the beginning). My only disappointment about the whole thing was not buying Nintendo stock when it was low, as the game was coming out.
I have mod points, and I'm tempted to use them on this thread, but I think it's more important to comment. I must begin by saying I am not a Trump supporter. I hate the guy and do not plan to vote for him.
That said, I am flabbergasted that the FBI basically said that Clinton broke laws, but because it wasn't intentional, they don't recommend charges. If you or I did that, we'd be in Federal PMITA Prison faster than you can say, "I'd like to speak to my lawyer." How many people have been found guilty in court with a reminder from the judge that "ignorance is no excuse."
It is now crystal clear that there are two sets of laws in this country: one set that applies to us regular folk and another that applies (or doesn't, rather) to the elite.
My guess is that, in the end, Joe Biden decided he didn't actually want to run for president this time around, or you can bet that the FBI and DoJ would come down hard on Clinton.
I have bought half a dozen of the WRT54GL since they came out--two for me and the others to help other people. They were great, and I'm surprised to see them still for sale. I've loaded DD-WRT and Tomato on this model and was very happy in general. My last one bit the dust and I've moved on.
There are plenty of routers out there now that work with DD-WRT. After doing a bit of research, I settled on the TP-LINK TL-WDR4300. I did not get a newer model, however, because DD-WRT didn't support the newest radios. Take a look before you buy, these firmware projects are always updating.
After having run the new hardware, I would recommend going this way. The processors are so much better that it's a dream to run the custom firmware compared to the WRT54GL.
Gun ownership may not be known by governments generally, and shouldn't be. However, my great state of Illinois requires registration. Gun owners are registered in the Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) database. If you are caught with ammo in your car and you don't have a FOID card, you're the lucky recipient of a fresh felony charge (can happen if your spouse leaves ammo in the car).
That doesn't explain the other 49 states, and Illinois' data shouldn't be public, but unfortunately our government knows who owns guns. In theory you might have a FOID and no gun, but that's probably a very small percentage. (And I should add: the gang bangers in Chicago who get their guns illegally definitely don't have this ID)
I agree with the proposition that we need to end the war on drugs (and I'm a conservative). At the very least, we need to stop locking up users--that's so counterproductive.
However, the real problem is that ending prohibition 2.0 (nice phrase, btw) is that it won't undo all of constitutional abuse that's come with it. Do you think legalizing drugs in our country will suddenly end civil asset forfeiture? That's basically what's going on in terms of this article. We're screwed either way and drugs have nothing to do with it.
The point is that we could enforce drug laws without trampling on constitutional rights. We can also legalize drugs and still live in a police state. We're far enough away from the 80s that they're basically orthogonal issues. And the bureaucrats will use any excuse (drugs, terrorism, kids) to support a totalitarian agenda with bipartisan support. Don't get too hung up on the drug thing--we need to fight the fire at the source.
So you bash gun owners saying, "You are dumber then a box of rocks. Wake up, it's not the 18th century any more.....they can generate a list with you name on it in milliseconds."
But then you amusingly go on to say, "You want to do something? Don't use software that requires signing a EULA. Tell your congress critter not to support the TPP. Join the EFF and the ACLU, use encryption and run Linux."
Pretty sure the gov't can generate a list of enemy non-combatants who use encryption about as quickly as they generate the gun owner list. But you go on feeling smug and superior about your method of protecting liberty and tell me how that goes when they bring their $5 wrench. I'm not saying that guns [or encryption] are the answer against a nuclear power, but your argument wasn't a whole lot smarter than the box of rocks you denigrate.
This works in theory, but it would be terrible in practice. Imagine if you had a good reason to sue Microsoft, for instance. They can spend millions defending themselves, and in our justice system, unfortunately, throwing more money at the problem is correlated with winning more. You could have a legitimate claim, they get out of it on a technicality, and now you're on the hook for millions.
Perhaps we could work something like: loser pays the min of the plaintiff or defendant legal fees to the winner. So in the worst case, you double your legal fees. I think that would also stop crooks like Zavodnik without bankrupting guys like Costello.
My idea has been to create an intellectual property tax that grows exponentially. The year the owner chooses not to pay the tax, the ip enters public domain. Start the tax small and set the curve so that you get a fair shot to use it (target 7 years). You can hold the patent (or copyright) as long as you want and can pay the tax, so an insanely profitable drug could be protected for longer than 17 years.
I dislike the double standards between physical and intellectual property. I'm told I have to pay ridiculous taxes on my home to support infrastructure. Fair enough, but then ip holders need to participate in funding the infrastructure they use for the country to defend their property rights and use.
But if the premise is, "they're not accurate" - a data point of one does show that the statement is false.
It's very hard to prove something true, yet all it takes is one counterexample to prove a claim false, which is what I am providing.
I'm sure there's plenty of caveat emptor to go around, but the very first thing I did when I got my Charge HR was to test it by taking my pulse myself and comparing it to the fitbit number.
The resting heart rate is dead on. (not their calculated resting heart rate--that's a dumb, arbitrary number they come up with, but the real time resting heart rate is accurate.)
I've had a few troubles with the workout heart rate, but not because it can't count, but because the wristband moves around after sweat dislodges it. It can slip down my wrist and the sensor will lose contact with my skin. But when that doesn't happen, the number is pretty close.
For a while at first, I wore my under armor heart rate monitor on my chest along with the fitbit, and they were pretty much in sync, too.
This lawsuit is why we can't have nice things.
It all depends how far away the plane is. I remember hearing the sonic boom of the space shuttle entering the atmosphere ca. 1998. It sounded like soft, distant thunder.
This plane plans to fly pretty high. If it waits to break until it's very high up, it won't be a problem for anyone.
Fighter jets are ludicrously loud, even subsonic. There's a small airport a couple miles from my office. When some f16s took off, it sounded like a jumbo jet was aiming to crash into our building.
From the article:
Ashok Goel, a computer science professor, did not reveal Watson's true identity to students until after they'd turned in their final exams.
And...
"A really fun thing in this class has been once students knew about Jill they were so motivated, so engaged. I've never seen this kind of motivation and engagement," Goel said. "What a beautiful way of teaching artificial intelligence."
Which was it?
Or is he saying they were demotivated and not engaged the whole semester?